KANSAS CITY, Kansas (Reuters) - A Kansas man who donated sperm to a lesbian couple so they could have a child said on Wednesday he is shocked the state is now trying to make him pay child support.

William Marotta, 46, donated sperm to Jennifer Schreiner and Angela Bauer under a written agreement that he would not be considered the father of the child nor liable for child support. A daughter, now 3, was born to Schreiner.

But in October, the state of Kansas filed a petition seeking to have Marotta declared the father of the child and financially responsible for her after the couple encountered money difficulties.

Marotta will ask the court in a hearing January 8 to dismiss the claim, which centers on a state law that the sperm must be donated through a licensed physician in order for the father to be free of any later financial obligations. Marotta gave a container of semen to the couple, who found him on Craigslist, instead of donating through a doctor or clinic.

The case is seen as having repercussions for other sperm donors. Sperm banks routinely provide sperm to people who want to conceive a child on the understanding that the donors are not responsible for the children.

Kansas is seeking child support from Marotta, including about $6,000 in medical expenses related to the child's birth, according to its petition.

"This was totally unexpected," Marotta said in a phone interview. "The very first thing that went through my mind was that no good deed goes unpunished."

The case has attracted national attention. Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said Wednesday "it is unfortunate and unfair" that Kansas is seeking money from a sperm donor.

"It certainly might have a negative effect on other men's willingness to help couples who need a donor, which would be harmful to everyone," Minter said.

"I also think it undermines everyone's respect for the law when you see it operate so arbitrarily."

Kansas officials are required under the law to determine the father of a child when someone seeks state benefits, said Angela de Rocha, spokeswoman for the Department for Children and Families. The couple was compelled to provide that information, which led to investigation of the sperm donation.

Marotta should be declared the father and subject to financial claims because he donated the sperm directly to the women and not through a physician, as required by Kansas law, the state's petition states.

Marotta said he's had virtually no contact with the child, but that he and Schreiner have remained cordial. He said she was pressured by the state to provide his name as the sperm donor.

"To me, ethics need to override rules," he said.

Lawyers for Marotta argue that he had no parental rights because of his agreement with the couple and cannot be held financially responsible.

They cite a 2007 case in which the Kansas Supreme Court ruled against a sperm donor seeking parental rights because he did not have any such agreement with the mother, lawyers for Marotta said.

If the father had no legal parental rights in the 2007 case, Marotta should be declared to have no parental obligations in the current case, Swinnen said.

Marotta, a race car mechanic, responded to an ad on Craigslist from someone offering to pay $50 for sperm donations, but he made the donation for free. Marotta said he and his wife have no children of their own but have fostered a daughter. Marotta said he was simply trying to help a couple wanting a child.

======================

Hopefully the judge will throw this case out or rule in favor of the donor. What would the long term ramifications of this be? No one donating sperm to couples in need?

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates

I think the moral of this story is... don't donate your genetic material on fuckin' Craig's List! lol Seriously!

I don't see this having any ramifications on egg and sperm donors who go through licensed clinics and sign appropriate legal documents and waivers. There's a reason a third party should be involved. If anything, they'll probably see an increase in business as people start to feel shady about the cheaper do-it-yourself methods of fertility transfers.

The case should be thrown out, obviously. Even without legally binding documents, there should be some weight to the verbal agreement between the donor and the women.

I think the moral of this story is... don't donate your genetic material on fuckin' Craig's List! lol Seriously!

I don't see this having any ramifications on egg and sperm donors who go through licensed clinics and sign appropriate legal documents and waivers. There's a reason a third party should be involved. If anything, they'll probably see an increase in business as people start to feel shady about the cheaper do-it-yourself methods of fertility transfers.

The case should be thrown out, obviously. Even without legally binding documents, there should be some weight to the verbal agreement between the donor and the women.

Yeah, I wouldn't donate my spooge on Craigslist. I'd assume anyone willing to take my semen filled Tupperware was out to scam me anyway. BUT, what are families/couples to do if they want a child and can't afford to go through a clinic? Any woman that wants a child can choose a mate and get knocked up. Getting whatever medical and genetic material he has without the benefit of a clinic filtering out bad seed. If someone wants to use a turkey baster and some dude's sperm, she should have the choice. And he should have the choice to not be financially committed.

The contract should take precedence.

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates

Yeah, I wouldn't donate my spooge on Craigslist. I'd assume anyone willing to take my semen filled Tupperware was out to scam me anyway. BUT, what are families/couples to do if they want a child and can't afford to go through a clinic? Any woman that wants a child can choose a mate and get knocked up. Getting whatever medical and genetic material he has without the benefit of a clinic filtering out bad seed. If someone wants to use a turkey baster and some dude's sperm, she should have the choice. And he should have the choice to not be financially committed.

The contract should take precedence.

To be totally honest - if you can't afford the cash to do it properly, what are the chances you can really afford to have a child, right? I mean look at this couple that's now destitute and looking for child support. I know plenty of people that can't afford it end up having kids all the time, but if you can't procreate naturally and you have to go through other more complicated means, it should be a bit of a wake-up call if you don't have enough of a financial cushion to not be at the dollar-store looking for a turkey baster to hand over to some dude on Craig's List.

Having said that - if people don't want to go through clinics, genetic testing and everything that's involved, all they really need to do is draw up proper legal documents and get a lawyer. Donors should insist on that at the very least. It shouldn't just be answering an ad, a handshake, $50 and a pack of beer. People should at least be able to afford drawing up a proper legally binding contract and getting the necessary signatures.

To be totally honest - if you can't afford the cash to do it properly, what are the chances you can really afford to have a child, right? I mean look at this couple that's now destitute and looking for child support. I know plenty of people that can't afford it end up having kids all the time, but if you can't procreate naturally and you have to go through other more complicated means, it should be a bit of a wake-up call if you don't have enough of a financial cushion to not be at the dollar-store looking for a turkey baster to hand over to some dude on Craig's List.

Having said that - if people don't want to go through clinics, genetic testing and everything that's involved, all they really need to do is draw up proper legal documents and get a lawyer. Donors should insist on that at the very least. It shouldn't just be answering an ad, a handshake, $50 and a pack of beer. People should at least be able to afford drawing up a proper legally binding contract and getting the necessary signatures.

I agree with all that. If you can't afford it, and now they can't afford to support the child, then you shouldn't be having kids yet anyway. But, our society says we can have as many kids as we want no matter the financial repercussions. If you can't afford to support a child, then I'd say having kids via turkey baster or natural procreation, should be put off.

They did have a contract, not sure if it was drawn up by an attorney or written on a napkin from IHOP.

Bottom line, if a person donates his sperm to someone his has no relationship with.. didn't have sex with... only "gifted" his sperm, is he on the hook for providing financial support for the kid?

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates

How is the donor to know what the recipient's financial qualifications are? My understanding of the case is that they couple was financially solvent and more than able to afford the child when it was conceived. During the pregnancy, one (or both) lost their incomes, and they had to go to the state for aid. The donor was well out of the picture by that time. It's idiotic to try and go after the "father" for repayment when he's the father in genetics only. Of course, this is Kansas, where they want the Bible taught as scientific fact, and the theory of evolution outlawed...

Yeah, I wouldn't donate my spooge on Craigslist. I'd assume anyone willing to take my semen filled Tupperware was out to scam me anyway. BUT, what are families/couples to do if they want a child and can't afford to go through a clinic? Any woman that wants a child can choose a mate and get knocked up. Getting whatever medical and genetic material he has without the benefit of a clinic filtering out bad seed. If someone wants to use a turkey baster and some dude's sperm, she should have the choice. And he should have the choice to not be financially committed.

The contract should take precedence.

So, the 1-800-LMSPOOG (leave off the E for savings) was not your number at the bottom of that advertisement?

The whole thing is ridiculous. Is it inappropriate for me to be curious how the insemination happened for the free sperm donation?

Ludicrous. As long as they had a written contract it doesn't matter if it was written on paper made from safran or a napkin from the local pub. As long as it's a written agreement where both parties sign it's valid. That goes for oral agreements as well. If there are witnesses that can say that "Yes, these two were sane and agreed on this" it's valid. It is a typical situation where ideology plays in.

As for the economic part; I dunno how child welfare works in Kansas. Over here it's as long as you have a kid you get some money no matter your financial situation. And what's wrong with using Craigslist? Who knows how much the clinics charge for you getting a kid. Some spend thousands of bucks to get it done, and that's just too big of an expense in short time. It really shouldn't matter in what way they got the kid. They both agreed that he shouldn't have any responsibility on the matter. End of.

Although what always makes me shake my head when it comes to the US; jump across the border and have it done in a shady motel in a different state and it's perfectly ok, while do it in your home it becomes a problem. THAT is what is most ludicrous in this case.

I am nopt an attorney, but it seems to me there are two basic issues here: First, is there a contract, and second, what is the law?

First, as to contract:Someone said the contract could be written on saffron paper or the back of an IHop napkin.

While that is technically true, as I recall from my Engineering Ethics and Engineering Economics courses, a contract, to be legally binding must meet four criteria: (1) Consideration - Something of value must transfer between the parties. Usually it is money. (2) There must be agreement - that is, the parties must agree to the terms. Usually this requires the contract be in writing and signed by both parties (3) Time - A specific time frame for completion of the contract must be stipulated. (4) Legal - The contract must not violate any Federal laws or the laws of the state or jurisdiction in which it is executed.

I didn't see anything in either the posts or the referenced articles that stated there is a legally binding contract. Further, I suspect it could be argued that by making the donation for free, he removed the first requirement of a contract: consideration, thereby maing any additional investigation into the question of form of contract moot. It also appears there may be local law that requires sperm donation be performed under specific circumstances. If the contract was an attempt to avoid those circumstances, it could be argued that the contract was not valid, because it was illegal in the jurisdiction in which it was executed.

Second, What is the case law? That is, what decisions have been rendered by the courts in similar cases, that may have bearing on how this case should be decided? In this instance, it appears there may be case law that indicates a donor cannot be declared the legal parent of the child."There's only three tempos: slow, medium and fast. When you get between in the cracks, ain't nuthin' happenin'." Ben Webster

Ultimately, I think the contract is null since he did it for free--thus making it more an act of kindness than something negotiated and agreed upon. Personally, I think it sucks. Plenty of women are financially stable who can't have kids but don't have the time to go to a sperm clinic and go through the selection process of finding a "proper" sample of sperm to be inseminated with. True, I wouldn't put an ad on Craigslist requesting a donor--I can only IMAGINE who would reply--but it would be awesome to be able to ask someone you think is awesome for his sperm and the guy not freak out that you're going to haul him to court in a couple of years seeking child support. But it IS Kansas and you have to recognize that shit too. What a crazy state.

I think it speaks very poorly of these women that they would ask for help and hope and the gift of a child from this man and then return that kindness with a law suit. Their priorities are not straight.

I think it speaks very poorly of these women that they would ask for help and hope and the gift of a child from this man and then return that kindness with a law suit. Their priorities are not straight.

That's not the case here. Kansas has a law that if a single mother requests assistance (food stamps, AFDC, whatever), she has to provide the father's name before it'll be granted. The state then sues the father for recompense.

Ultimately, I think the contract is null since he did it for free--thus making it more an act of kindness than something negotiated and agreed upon. .

It doesn't really matter if you're paid for it or not, a contract is still a contract. It's something two parties agree upon and they both have signed. If we make a contract where it says that whenever I urinate on your favourite oak tree in your backyard I will have to get spanked 10 times on a bare bottom then that contract is valid, regardless of the fact that neither of us get any money out of it.

But in fairness he did get paid for doing it. He didn't have to pay child support(according to the agreement) so that is a finanicial benefit that he has gained from the agreement. Just becasue he doesn't get cold hard cash in hand straight away doesn't mean that there isn't a financial profit.

a contract, to be legally binding must meet four criteria: (1) Consideration - Something of value must transfer between the parties. Usually it is money. (2) There must be agreement - that is, the parties must agree to the terms. Usually this requires the contract be in writing and signed by both parties (3) Time - A specific time frame for completion of the contract must be stipulated. (4) Legal - The contract must not violate any Federal laws or the laws of the state or jurisdiction in which it is executed.

Since the state of Kanss has a law setting forth certain requirements for sperm donation, and they did not follow those requirements, any contract they may have had (absent a severability clause, which I doubt they had) is null and void, because it is superceeded by the laws of the state."There's only three tempos: slow, medium and fast. When you get between in the cracks, ain't nuthin' happenin'." Ben Webster

You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.